Too Many Mothers (and Fathers) Crying, Too Many Brothers (and Sisters) Dying
And I'm sure you need little help gathering that the Gaye-connection is "what's going on."
I had the good fortune today to have the opportunity to (temporarily) overcome my telephone-phobia in a good cause, recruiting GOTV volunteers on behalf of MoveOn's mega-campaign. While the actual work was daunting, the feeling of community, both in our equivalent of a locker room and with the folks on the phone, was a real energizing boost. There are great people out there, lots of them, donating money and when they can agreeably taking on more time burdens. In particular I remember one mother of two youngsters (I could hear the sweethearts in the background, chafing at my competition for their support system). She runs a home business and volunteers for several organizations, my reconstruction involving a local co-op, educational program, and possibly another political cause. How in the world could she commit to several hours of GOTV? She did, noting that one hour would coincide with birthday party when kids were otherwise occupied.
Can we do less?
I'm going to end with generous excerpting from Mr. Froomkin of the Post. Believe me, despite wordcount here, this is an extraction - Dan F does not short us on words, nor should he. There is plenty of additional good stuff in this column left for you junkies to explore via the link. I have noted here before that you can't go wrong putting a priority on reading his daily column. Incidentally, in case you missed it, the term "the Google" is at least most recently attributable to one of those no-longer-endearing indications via verbal gaffes that we have a person in the white house who is no less than a full hod short of a load. In the spirit of "the Internets," of course. Might be worth a google itself. Whether the dumb-as-a-stump-ness is acted or real has almost become irrelevant.
At a surprise press conference this morning, President Bush acknowledged the nation's grave concerns about the war in Iraq.
"I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq," Bush said, 13 days before a mid-term election that will in large part be a referendum on the war. "I'm not satisfied either."
"I think I owe an explanation to the American people," he said.
But Bush didn't have much new to say today, other than endorsing yesterday's already largely debunked announcement in Baghdad of a "new plan" that sounds very much like the old plan.
And after an hour of familiar sound bites, the public would be forgiven for feeling it still hasn't gotten that explanation he promised.
Among the things that remain unexplained:
* Why does Bush believe that staying in Iraq will make things better, when the evidence suggests that it keeps making things worse?
* Why does he believe that progress is being made, when the evidence suggests that Iraq is sliding deeper and deeper into civil war?
* Why does he remain confident in Iraq's central government, when the evidence suggests that the center is not holding?
* Why hasn't anyone in his administration been held accountable for all the things that have gone wrong?
The Washington Post's Peter Baker asked that last question, and after initially responding with a strong endorsement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Bush had this to say:
"The ultimate accountability, Peter, rests with me. That's the ultimate -- you're asking about accountability -- that's -- that's -- it rests right here. It's what the 2004 campaign was about. You know, people want to -- if people are unhappy about it, look right to the president."
NBC's David Gregory posed this question: "Mr. President, for several years you have been saying that America will 'stay the course' in Iraq. You were committed to the policy. And now you say that no, you're not saying 'stay the course,' that you're adapting to win, that you're showing flexibility. And as you mention, out of Baghdad we're now hearing about benchmarks and timetables from the Iraqi government, as relayed by American officials, to stop the sectarian violence.
"In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about benchmarks and timetables were labeled as 'defeatists, ' 'Defeat- o-crats,' or people who wanted to 'cut and run.'
"So why shouldn't the American people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetorical games and all politics two weeks before an election?"
Bush replied by distinguishing between mutually agreed-upon benchmarks and a fixed timetable for withdrawal.
But Bush has previously opposed even benchmarks. And when asked how he planned to measure success toward the benchmarks -- and what he would do if the benchmarks weren't met -- Bush ducked the question.
Bush also notably would not renounce his ambitions for permanent military bases in Iraq, a source of tremendous ire with the Iraqi public.
The Post's Baker gracefully thanked Bush for taking questions today -- even though reporters were given less than an hour's notice to show up at the White House.
Bush responded with obvious sarcasm: "I can't tell you how joyful it is."
-clip-
The White House's frantic rhetorical flips are becoming impossible to ignore.
Matt Spetalnick writes for Reuters: "Banished from Bush's vernacular is 'stay the course,' which was his mantra for conveying America's resolve in Iraq until Democrats seized on the phrase as a sign that he and his fellow Republicans were unresponsive to mounting U.S. casualties.
-clip-
John Dickerson writes in Slate: "What's being lost in the semantic game over 'stay the course' is the new set of choices that really confront the administration. They are not tactical. They are strategic and they are all painful: partitioning Iraq into semiautonomous regions, changing the Al-Maliki government, asking for diplomatic cooperation from neighboring countries like Syria and Iran, or adding more U.S. troops. If the administration were as flexible as it has been proclaiming recently, it would be talking about these options. It has either refused to consider them or stayed mum. If the White House is doing away with the old slogan, perhaps it should mint a new one: 'All options are ugly.'"
-clip-
Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "Things have become so dire for the Republicans that now even Bush is distancing himself from Bush.
"The president is cutting and running from the president. . . .
"A presidency built on message discipline (Message: 'Stay the course') is trying to salvage itself with some last-minute un-messaging (Message: 'No more stay the course') . . .
-clip-
Harold Meyerson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The president has fled the field from 'stay the course,' signaling not just the unwinnability of his war but the bankruptcy of his political strategy. For as the president and his party grope for an alternative plan of action in Iraq, Karl Rove's bright line between Republican resolve and Democratic defeatism has become irreversibly fuzzed."
Frederick W. Kagan writes in The Washington Post: "The U.S. military destroyed Iraq's government and all institutions able to keep civil order. It designated itself an 'occupying force,' thereby accepting the responsibility to restore and maintain such order. . . .
"By allowing violence and disorder to spread throughout the country, the Bush administration has broken faith with the Iraqi people and ignored its responsibilities. It has placed U.S. security in jeopardy by creating the preconditions for the sort of terrorist safe haven the president repeatedly warns about and by demonstrating that no ally can rely on America to be there when it counts."
-clip-
In one of more than 30 appearances yesterday, White House press secretary Tony Snow went on Fox News and tried to minimize the decision to no longer describe Bush's policy as 'stay the course.' (See my Monday and Tuesday columns.)
Said Snow: '[W]e went back and looked today and could only find eight times where he ever used the term, the phrase 'stay the course.'
But the liberal ThinkProgress Web site fired back: 'Apparently, the White House research team isn't very good at ' the Google .' ThinkProgress has documented 30 times that Bush has used the phrase to describe his policy in Iraq.
-clip-
On MSNBC's Hardball, yesterday, Chris Matthews asked the question again:
"MATTHEWS: Are we winning the war in Iraq?
"SNOW: Yes. . . .
"MATTHEWS: If this is victory, if this is winning what we're doing now, what would losing look like? I mean that seriously. What would have to happen for the president to decide that he did make a mistake, we can't set up a democracy in Iraq given those factional rivalries in that country, it can't be done?
-clip-
I had the good fortune today to have the opportunity to (temporarily) overcome my telephone-phobia in a good cause, recruiting GOTV volunteers on behalf of MoveOn's mega-campaign. While the actual work was daunting, the feeling of community, both in our equivalent of a locker room and with the folks on the phone, was a real energizing boost. There are great people out there, lots of them, donating money and when they can agreeably taking on more time burdens. In particular I remember one mother of two youngsters (I could hear the sweethearts in the background, chafing at my competition for their support system). She runs a home business and volunteers for several organizations, my reconstruction involving a local co-op, educational program, and possibly another political cause. How in the world could she commit to several hours of GOTV? She did, noting that one hour would coincide with birthday party when kids were otherwise occupied.
Can we do less?
I'm going to end with generous excerpting from Mr. Froomkin of the Post. Believe me, despite wordcount here, this is an extraction - Dan F does not short us on words, nor should he. There is plenty of additional good stuff in this column left for you junkies to explore via the link. I have noted here before that you can't go wrong putting a priority on reading his daily column. Incidentally, in case you missed it, the term "the Google" is at least most recently attributable to one of those no-longer-endearing indications via verbal gaffes that we have a person in the white house who is no less than a full hod short of a load. In the spirit of "the Internets," of course. Might be worth a google itself. Whether the dumb-as-a-stump-ness is acted or real has almost become irrelevant.
At a surprise press conference this morning, President Bush acknowledged the nation's grave concerns about the war in Iraq.
"I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq," Bush said, 13 days before a mid-term election that will in large part be a referendum on the war. "I'm not satisfied either."
"I think I owe an explanation to the American people," he said.
But Bush didn't have much new to say today, other than endorsing yesterday's already largely debunked announcement in Baghdad of a "new plan" that sounds very much like the old plan.
And after an hour of familiar sound bites, the public would be forgiven for feeling it still hasn't gotten that explanation he promised.
Among the things that remain unexplained:
* Why does Bush believe that staying in Iraq will make things better, when the evidence suggests that it keeps making things worse?
* Why does he believe that progress is being made, when the evidence suggests that Iraq is sliding deeper and deeper into civil war?
* Why does he remain confident in Iraq's central government, when the evidence suggests that the center is not holding?
* Why hasn't anyone in his administration been held accountable for all the things that have gone wrong?
The Washington Post's Peter Baker asked that last question, and after initially responding with a strong endorsement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Bush had this to say:
"The ultimate accountability, Peter, rests with me. That's the ultimate -- you're asking about accountability -- that's -- that's -- it rests right here. It's what the 2004 campaign was about. You know, people want to -- if people are unhappy about it, look right to the president."
NBC's David Gregory posed this question: "Mr. President, for several years you have been saying that America will 'stay the course' in Iraq. You were committed to the policy. And now you say that no, you're not saying 'stay the course,' that you're adapting to win, that you're showing flexibility. And as you mention, out of Baghdad we're now hearing about benchmarks and timetables from the Iraqi government, as relayed by American officials, to stop the sectarian violence.
"In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about benchmarks and timetables were labeled as 'defeatists, ' 'Defeat- o-crats,' or people who wanted to 'cut and run.'
"So why shouldn't the American people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetorical games and all politics two weeks before an election?"
Bush replied by distinguishing between mutually agreed-upon benchmarks and a fixed timetable for withdrawal.
But Bush has previously opposed even benchmarks. And when asked how he planned to measure success toward the benchmarks -- and what he would do if the benchmarks weren't met -- Bush ducked the question.
Bush also notably would not renounce his ambitions for permanent military bases in Iraq, a source of tremendous ire with the Iraqi public.
The Post's Baker gracefully thanked Bush for taking questions today -- even though reporters were given less than an hour's notice to show up at the White House.
Bush responded with obvious sarcasm: "I can't tell you how joyful it is."
-clip-
The White House's frantic rhetorical flips are becoming impossible to ignore.
Matt Spetalnick writes for Reuters: "Banished from Bush's vernacular is 'stay the course,' which was his mantra for conveying America's resolve in Iraq until Democrats seized on the phrase as a sign that he and his fellow Republicans were unresponsive to mounting U.S. casualties.
-clip-
John Dickerson writes in Slate: "What's being lost in the semantic game over 'stay the course' is the new set of choices that really confront the administration. They are not tactical. They are strategic and they are all painful: partitioning Iraq into semiautonomous regions, changing the Al-Maliki government, asking for diplomatic cooperation from neighboring countries like Syria and Iran, or adding more U.S. troops. If the administration were as flexible as it has been proclaiming recently, it would be talking about these options. It has either refused to consider them or stayed mum. If the White House is doing away with the old slogan, perhaps it should mint a new one: 'All options are ugly.'"
-clip-
Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "Things have become so dire for the Republicans that now even Bush is distancing himself from Bush.
"The president is cutting and running from the president. . . .
"A presidency built on message discipline (Message: 'Stay the course') is trying to salvage itself with some last-minute un-messaging (Message: 'No more stay the course') . . .
-clip-
Harold Meyerson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The president has fled the field from 'stay the course,' signaling not just the unwinnability of his war but the bankruptcy of his political strategy. For as the president and his party grope for an alternative plan of action in Iraq, Karl Rove's bright line between Republican resolve and Democratic defeatism has become irreversibly fuzzed."
Frederick W. Kagan writes in The Washington Post: "The U.S. military destroyed Iraq's government and all institutions able to keep civil order. It designated itself an 'occupying force,' thereby accepting the responsibility to restore and maintain such order. . . .
"By allowing violence and disorder to spread throughout the country, the Bush administration has broken faith with the Iraqi people and ignored its responsibilities. It has placed U.S. security in jeopardy by creating the preconditions for the sort of terrorist safe haven the president repeatedly warns about and by demonstrating that no ally can rely on America to be there when it counts."
-clip-
In one of more than 30 appearances yesterday, White House press secretary Tony Snow went on Fox News and tried to minimize the decision to no longer describe Bush's policy as 'stay the course.' (See my Monday and Tuesday columns.)
Said Snow: '[W]e went back and looked today and could only find eight times where he ever used the term, the phrase 'stay the course.'
But the liberal ThinkProgress Web site fired back: 'Apparently, the White House research team isn't very good at ' the Google .' ThinkProgress has documented 30 times that Bush has used the phrase to describe his policy in Iraq.
-clip-
On MSNBC's Hardball, yesterday, Chris Matthews asked the question again:
"MATTHEWS: Are we winning the war in Iraq?
"SNOW: Yes. . . .
"MATTHEWS: If this is victory, if this is winning what we're doing now, what would losing look like? I mean that seriously. What would have to happen for the president to decide that he did make a mistake, we can't set up a democracy in Iraq given those factional rivalries in that country, it can't be done?
-clip-
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home